Rosenberg: EXPELLED-James Lotz (For Some Reason or Other)

In your Expelled clip, Ben Stein asks Dawkins how life began:

DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don't know

BEN STEIN: So you have no idea how it started?

DAWKINS: No, no. Nor has anybody.

I take it that this is the exchange you wanted me to comment on. This is one of those “big” questions of science, the question about origins. This discussion is similar to one we had in our first post. You asked about cosmology and how the universe began and this was my response:

Well I'm not going to try to give an answer to how the earth began. This is because I don't know. But understand that the question of cosmology is a scientific one nonetheless and is worthy of study. Your demands are simply too high. There are things that we don't understand. We have to be humble. Science has been making progress towards answering these difficult questions. Remember, telescopes weren't even invented until the 17th century. It wasn't until the later half of the 19th century that scientists were able to determine the composition of the stars. Einstein's theory of special relativity wasn't published until 1905. And the use of nuclear physics in trying to explain the origins didn't really begin until the 1940s. But you can't take this question of origin away from science and give it to religion. That answers nothing. That would be ignorant hand waving, I would say. This is at least worthy of scientific study.

Science does not have the answers right now. But here is the thing-- NOR HAS ANYBODY! At least scientists are working on solving these puzzles:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origins-science-krauss

(If you link to the video archive, you can watch these lectures online)

Notice that I never said that science will someday have all the answers. Perhaps one day we will have the answers, perhaps not--I don’t know. A point that I was trying to make here was that science has a progressive nature. There is no faith here. Scientists are just trying to find out about the world.

Watch this short clip of Richard Feynman. He elaborates on this idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0

“When I say Intelligent Design I am not interested in defending Michael Behe or Dembski, I am arguing for the hand of a creator/intelligent mind in the making of all that we can see/study.”

OK I believe this to be the confusion. We have intelligent design as I had discussed in my last post. But we also the argument from design which is an argument for the existence of God based on the perceived purpose in the world (think Paley’s watchmaker). These are distinct concepts--one is a political and religious movement and the other is a “proof” of God’s existence. Although advocates of ID accept this argument from design, it is not true vice verse.

The traditional argument from design is one from analogy:

Stuff that looks designed (i.e., a watch) has a designer. There is something--life, nature, the cosmological constants, etc.--that looks like it has been designed. Therefore, by analogy, this something must also have a designer. This designer is God.

There is also another classic argument for the existence of God--the cosmological argument:

Everything we know has a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, there must be a first cause. This first cause is God.

You need to help me out here, are you confusing this cosmological argument with, as I called it, the “big” questions of science (the empirical problems of discovering the initial conditions of the universe and of life itself)? If not then you are committed to a God of the gaps and we already discussed this. If so, great. Let’s discuss this now. But if this is the case, then you are also confusing these two arguments. The design argument and the cosmological argument are two distinct arguments.

Rosenberg: Ben Stein can suck it!

Dawkins on Expelled

I’ve watched the video clip several times. When Ben Stein asked whether intelligent design could be a possible explanation for life on this planet, Dawkins says the following:

It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Dawkins gives us a thought experiment from science fiction. Imagine a group of aliens that came here some 4 billion years ago with the purpose of seeding life on this planet. This is a scenario in which life on earth could have arisen. As far fetched as this might seem, it is surely a possibility. And it is in this sense that intelligent design could be true. What is upsetting is how Stein fails to understand that this is a mere thought experiment. As Stein says later in the video:

So Professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers, such as God.

NO! What Dawkins was doing was bending over backwards for Stein and giving intelligent design his best shot. He does not actually believe this scenario to be true. Dawkins thinks that an intelligent designer of this sort is more likely than the God of the bible. Is this really surprising? Dawkins then goes on to say that even if this space alien scenario were true, we would still be left with problem of having to explain how the alien life form came about.

I agree with Dawkins on this one so I’m not really sure what you expected me to say about this or how you think it will better our discussion. Dawkins also has a reaction piece about this movie on his website here.

Intelligent Design

Given our discussion so far I feel that you do not understand what intelligent design is. Intelligent design, as it is commonly discussed, is not just a descriptive term. It is essentially a political and religious movement that masquerades as a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a descendent of creationism but with the “God talk” taken out as to get around the establishment clause of the first amendment so that it can be taught in public schools. Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, irreducible complexity, the design inference, the wedge strategy, Of Pandas and People, Darwin's Black Box, The Discovery Institute-- these are some of the major people, ideas, books, and organizations that are associated with the ID movement. When we talk about intelligent design, this is what we are talking about.

I recommend that you read up on the history of this movement. Eugenie Scott has a detailed history in her book Evolution vs. Creationism. Most of the relevant chapter on neocreationism can be found online here (chapter 6).

I also recommend watching the PBS Nova special on the famous Dover case, Intelligent Design on Trial.

So to say that you will argue either as a deist or an advocate for intelligent design really does not make much sense. The two positions are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Whereas deism is compatible with the science, intelligent design is, at its core, an anti-evolutionist position (organisms created in their original form rather than by evolutionary processes). If you were merely a deist, we would not be writing a blog together because there wouldn't be much for us to argue about. Perhaps I will give reasons for why I am not a deist in a later post but right now we are on the subject of science and religion. And if you were really an advocate for intelligent design, we would not be having our discussion on theistic evolution because intelligent design theorists are opposed to evolution. Please, let us continue where we left off last time.